text:
Looking for sex on Madison for my very naughty girlfriend
First name: Keylhia, Age: 35 yo, City: Madison (WI)
If we write a sex ad, it's in the hope of playing with a hot guy during an amazing encounter without taboos. I'm a hot chick who's good at making dicks hard. We love going to libertine clubs in Madison to meet open-minded people. This is first and foremost for me because I am tireless with the m'sieux and I have no taboos. You can meet me at the end of the week. This is not a problem for us to welcome you for this meeting or make an appointment where you want. Don't hesitate to write a little note, we'll be happy to look at it. I hope to see you for a lovely encounter between naughty people. Kisses. See you later.
Beautiful woman in a relationship at 39 years old on Tamarac looking for 1 guy to play hot games with
Stripes Nudity
First name: Dolly, Age: 39 yo, City: Tamarac (FL)
Hello everyone, I am Dolly, I'm almost 39 years old and I'm from Tamarac. I am quite sexy, naughty and erotic. I am free and live a totally liberated life. I don't hide from my close friends that I often have sexual relations with men that I don't know very well. I'm sort of a sex addict. I love fucking for hours. I am looking for a libertine with an enormous engine very wide to procure me pleasure during this q plan. Besides that, I'm pretty submissive if you make me hot and bothered and I don't have any taboos. To meet, you can come to my house or go to the restaurant. I am available in the evening, I'm not bitchy. So, I'm looking forward to reading your comments. I'm looking forward to getting to know you. I'm sure we'll have a great time during this naughty date. I'm leaving! I give you a big hug.
Girl in a relationship on Carmichael for a threesome
Stripes Nudity
First name: Inoa, Age: 28 yo, City: Carmichael (CA)
Welcome couples, I am Inoa and I'm 28 years old. My darling is 29 years old and we're quite hot. We propose that you meet us at a swingers club. We're finally available on Friday. I am looking for a nice guy without any hang-ups who will make me feel good with my husband because I am a very hot lady who likes to have 2 naughty guys all to herself. We enjoy different libertine practices. We are fans of threesomes and particularly voyeurism. Indeed, having intimate relations in a basement is one of our favorite pastimes. You can leave us a comment if you want to get to know us and have a hot date with us. Big kisses.
Cougar looking for one night stand in a cave
Stripes Nudity
First name: Kalthoum, Age: 48 yo, City: Rosemead (CA)
I want a guy who is young enough and the most important thing is that he has a nice dick to give me a lot of pleasure because I am a very greedy slut. I know how to play with my conquests to make them hard. I love role-playing sexual games. I dream of a guy who is naturally imaginative in this respect to guide me through my stories and take me into his world and fantasies. I'm available for this hookup on Saturday. I can give you a first date at the restaurant to get to know each other. So I ask you to contact me without delay if you want me to have an orgasm. I demand a guy who is quite dominant. Kiss.
An older woman would like to have her first hot encounter with a young man in Gilroy
Stripes Nudity
First name: Natanaelle, Age: 38 yo, City: Gilroy (CA)
I'm available on Saturday and rather at the end of the day. You can have a date wherever you want. I like muscular bad boys. I also demand a guy who's been spoiled by nature, because otherwise I don't get off. I absolutely need to have an orgasm. I love exhibitionist plans. I've been a naughty and exhibitionist woman for a long time. It turns me on when men spy on me while I'm fucking in a public place like a private club. In conclusion, I think I'm going to have good dates with a libertine. At first, you have to contact me. I hope to meet you soon! Kisses.
Beautiful brunette woman would like to have a good fucker on Santa Cruz
Stripes Nudity
First name: Anaig, Age: 44 yo, City: Santa Cruz (CA)
I would like a man who is rather young and has a huge penis in order to give me a lot of sensation because I am hot. I know how to handle my conquests to make them hard. To find each other, we can go to my place or the restaurant. I am available at the end of the day, I'm not contrary. A fuck plan must make me have an orgasm. I want a man who is a good cunnilingus. Otherwise I'm a fan of anal sex but with finesse. I'm personally for a date in the woods if you're an exhibitionist. I prefer a guy who wants to take charge during our dirty night. I'm only here to enjoy myself. I'm very excited, and I hope to be able to discover you on Santa Cruz as soon as possible. Please leave a message. Bye.
5 to 7 intense on Los Angeles for a charming single cougar woman
Stripes Nudity
First name: Jersey, Age: 47 yo, City: Los Angeles (CA)
I am 47 years old, live on Los Angeles and I am a mature woman alone. I far prefer meeting people online for the good reason that it allows me to approach men more freely. I'm too reserved to go out clubbing or bar-hopping in search of potential men. I prefer a man who is relatively young and, most importantly, has a very large penis in order to give me lots of sensation because I am quite greedy. I know how to deal with my fuck buddies to make them hard. I just want to meet someone for sex because I love making love without limits with a stranger. I like trying new things, so I need a big stud with experience. To meet, I am free to give you an afternoon appointment in general. We can see each other on Los Angeles and its surroundings. I hope to soon have a date without taboos in Los Angeles. I'm sure I'll have a blast with you. I'm very excited to meet you. Kisses.
Virgin girl looking for her first hookup in Avondale
Stripes Nudity
First name: Eloyse, Age: 29 yo, City: Avondale (AZ)
Hello, I am a pretty girl who is in a relationship but I have lovers. I work as a waitress and it's not exciting. I'm the slutty type, so I decided to find myself a guy. I'm generally free to meet up with you at the end of the evening. We can see each other on Avondale and its surroundings. Ideally, I would like the boys who write to me to be blond and rather muscular. The boy I'm looking for must be able to endure because I expect a lot from him sexually. I can stay in bed all weekend if my partner knows what they're doing. I just want to have a man for a one night stand because I love making love without any hassle with a guy that I don't know. I like to do a lot of naughty positions, so I want a libertine with experience. I'm looking forward to your proposals. I'm looking forward to the first interview, it's always very exciting for me... Kisses Eloyse.
This slutty, married woman would love to fuck an anonymous stranger on Kentwood
Stripes Nudity
First name: Zulal, Age: 32 yo, City: Kentwood (MI)
Hi guys, my name is Zulal and I'm in a relationship. I'm 32 years old. I'm pretty sexy. My boyfriend and I are swingers. We are oriented towards sadomasochism. The best for me is when I am hooked so that my darling can look at me when you hurt me and I moan like never before. I am on this libertine site in order to share with other libertines. My man is absolutely on board with this approach. I'm looking for a man who is confident and has a big penis so that my husband can see him giving me pleasure. I can give you a date in a public place. I also agree to go on a date in an exhibition place in Kentwood. Since you are aware of what I want, you have the right to leave me a message. I'm sure I'll have a good time with you. I'm leaving. I kiss you.
A couple who enjoys sharing their partner with others is looking to play in an Bozeman swingers club
Stripes Nudity
First name: Hagera, Age: 47 yo, City: Bozeman (MT)
We are a pretty passionate couple who loves discovering unusual things. We mainly enjoy exhibitionism and voyeurism in public places with other kinky people. We prefer to meet you at your place. We are also free on weekends. Age is not a major criterion, but a good feeling is always essential for enjoying ourselves together. We're just looking for a naughty guy for some hard sex. You have the right to leave us a message if you want to meet us for a hot date. See you later.
- Sunshine Cleaning Topless Cleaning
- Sarah Louise Parker Nude
- Kelcy Griffin Nude
- Lucero Nude
- Brigitte Bardot Nude Photos
- Top Class Escort Gladstone, Oregon
- Olivia Cheng Naked
- Thekla Reuten Naked
- Mary Padian Bathing Suit
- Renata Notni Estatura
- Top Class Escort Mission Viejo, California
- Sarah Jessica Parker Naked Pics
- Bridgette Wilson Hot Pics
- Top Class Escort Carterville, Illinois
- Maria Korinthiou Nude
- Nancy Allen Nude Photos
- Top Class Escort Rogersville, Tennessee
- Top Class Escort Michigan City, Indiana


text:
Adult Friend Finder Review
Is Adult Friend Finder really effective? Is it legit and safe? What is the price? We'll get to all of these questions in this review. Moreover, you'll find out if it's worth the price. If you're thinking about purchasing it, you'll want to make sure it works as advertised. Let's first take a look at its design.
Does it work?
If you're looking for an adult dating app, you've probably heard of AdultFriendFinder.com. It boasts millions of members and a large consumer base. Whether you're looking for a casual hookup or serious relationships, AdultFriendFinder.com has the tools and the community to make it happen. Here are some things to look for when using this service. Listed below are a few things to avoid when using AdultFriendFinder.com.
One of the first things that you should look for is authenticity. Adult Friend Finder prevents fake profiles by requiring users to submit email verification. You will need to have a valid email address in order to join. This will double as security as it will allow moderators identify people who aren't. After you've verified your email address, you'll be able to see the profile of the person you want to meet.
Another thing to look for when joining AdultFriendFinder is payment options. You can create an account and view profiles for free. However, to access premium features you will need to pay. However, you'll get a lot of features for free. You can search for other users and participate in forums, blogs, or groups. You can also upload photos and videos. Then, when you're ready, you can contact the platform's customer service for support.
You can upgrade to a gold membership to get a free basic membership. Gold members can send unlimited texts, view private photo albums, and send gifts to their matches. Gold members have more opportunities than other membership options to make meaningful connections and interact. You will be matched based on your preferences and interests. You can also try different dating options before you make a decision. Then, if you feel comfortable, you can move on to the next level.
While many adult dating sites may not be 100% secure, the website is very safe and secure. All user data is encrypted with 32-bit encryption. You can rest assured that your information will not be shared with others. Ashley Madison was one example. However, that website was quickly closed down. That's why you should be confident when you sign up for AdultFriendFinder. But be sure to follow the tips listed above to make sure your information stays safe.
Is it legal?
When you sign up for an adult friendfinder website, one of the first things you should do is to find a photo that you feel comfortable with. While it is important to look good on the website you also need to consider the type of person that you are looking for. This will help you decide if you are interested in meeting up. Adult friend finders usually allow you to post a photo of yourself, but if you're looking for a guy to have sex with, you should put the appropriate information.
Adult Friend Finder is still one of the most popular adult dating sites online because of its popularity. Its ads have been featured on free porn sites worldwide. Since then, the site has made several changes, which have made it more user friendly for all types of members. Its payment details and security measures are also clearly defined. The site is one of the few sites that allows you to meet men and women who share your sexual fantasies.
Adult Friend Finder can be used to arrange sex but it is not without its problems. While it has a nice interface and is highly user-friendly, it has a lot of similarity with conventional dating apps. However, the app's true purpose is to help people who share the same interests with each other. Using the site doesn't mean that you'll find someone who's interested in hooking up with you.
The app is easy to use and offers several ways for you to organize your messaging inbox. You can organize your messages by Cupid matches or hotlists. You can also create personalized folders. The app has been criticized in the past for having a high number of fake profiles, but the company has taken steps to remove those users. You can sign up immediately to the service if you don't want to be scammed.
In addition to being a great place to find a new online friend, you can also build relationships on AdultFriendFinder.com. You can also participate in social contests to help you gain traction on the site. Although there are some rules you must follow, the social contests allow you to be your wild side. But be careful not to overdo it!
Is it Safe?
It's important to know how to protect yourself when using an adult dating site, such as Adult Friend Finder. You can take some basic security measures to protect your account, such as not sending out personal photos. You should also avoid meeting strangers in public places, and use a different email address when communicating with them. In addition, you should avoid sending out nude photos. Avoid being scammed by using masked profile photos that only show your core, not your face. You should always verify the identities of those you are communicating with.
While Adult Friend Finder is a good way to make new friends, it's not recommended for people who are looking for a swinger in a remote location. It's not safe to send out emails to people you don't know, and there's a good chance you'll get a lot of spam. You will likely get a lot of spam emails from vultures. This is not what you want. Be aware of other websites that are connected to AFF. Many fake and bot accounts are on the site.
You will need to enter your username, email address, and password before you can sign up for Adult Friend Finder. It is a good idea for you to create a separate email address for the service. You can also cancel your account at any time. Last, confirm your password. If you find someone you like, contact them for a meeting. If you're not happy with the results, you can always opt out.
The app and website have been upgraded several times since 1996. The interface is packed with features. Members can search for profiles, blog, view Live Sex Cams, and even send messages to people they meet. The service is not 100% secure. The company has suffered multiple security breaches. Four million user's personal information was stolen in May 2015. In November 2016, it was discovered that a site with unencrypted access stored more than 30 million members' private information. So, be careful when using Adult Friend Finder and keep these precautions in mind.
What is the cost?
How much does Adult Friend Finder cost? The Gold membership is the best option if you are serious about meeting new people. This premium membership gives you unlimited access to the site's most explicit content. If you are serious about using the site, you can pay with a debit or credit card. You can set up direct debit so that your payments automatically appear on your bank statement. However, you'll want to be careful when clicking on the links on the site.
You can view the profiles of other members as a free member but can't access many of the paid features. Premium members can add friends and send messages to other members. They can also use chat. You can still use the video and search filters even though you are free. You have three options for paid membership depending on your needs. Here's a closer look at the details.
Although memberships are not free, they have a limited scope. Adult Friend Finder's main purpose is to connect people for casual encounters. Although the site has many professionals, it is disappointing that there are not enough amateur users. Find local postings to make your profile stand out and get known in your community. Finally, if you're an amateur, wait for the occasional AFF discount coupon.
Adult Friend Finder's main advantage is its vast database. Its users can search across different niche interests. And because it shares its database with BigChurch, you can even meet members from these other websites. But there are some drawbacks as well. Before you can start contacting others, you will need to create a profile. Adult Friend Finder is not for you if you are looking for a serious relationship. You will still benefit from its rich content and many opportunities to meet new people.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Job Details
Class A CDL - Dedicated Flatbed truck driver - PODS
Top drivers earn up to $80,000 | Up to $7,500 sign-on bonus
Average pay: $1,180-$1,370 weekly
Home time: Every three weeks
Experience: All CDL holders
- Flatbed trailer hauling multi-stop freight.
- Strap and secure PODS containers.
- 1-3 loads per week.
- Drive within all 48 states.
Pay and bonus potential
- Mileage pay (practical miles).
- Weekly paychecks.
- Weekly performance pay.
- Unlimited referral bonus potential.
- $7,500 limited-time sign-on bonus in 12 monthly payments for experienced drivers.
- $5,000 limited-time sign-on bonus in 12 monthly payments for inexperienced drivers.
*Based on CDL driver experience, performance and location
- Valid Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL).
- Live within 100 miles of Detroit, MI.
Need CDL training? Explore our company-paid CDL training programs or call us at [Register to View] , and we can talk you through it.
Additional benefits
- Medical, dental and vision insurance.
- Flexible spending options.
- 401(k) savings plan with company match.
- Paid orientation.
- Paid time off after 6 months, plus 6 days of holiday pay per year.
- $200/month tuition reimbursement (up to $7,000) for qualified drivers.
- Credit for Military Experience and Military Apprenticeship programs, plus more military benefits.
- Leading equipment and technology specs designed for driver comfort.
- See full list of driver benefit package.
More reasons to choose Schneider Dedicated driving
- Dependable paychecks – Your weekly paycheck will reflect the consistent miles you drive on a weekly basis.
- Familiarity – You get to know the routes you drive and the customer you work with.
- Satisfaction – The feeling you get from keeping the customer's freight moving and contributing to the overall success of the customer will be nothing short of pride.
Schneider uses E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired associates. To learn more about E-Verify, including your rights and responsibilities, please visit www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.
Job Company Driver
Schedule Full-time
Sign On Bonus 7500


text:
Inside The Album Of The Year: Jack White 'Blunderbuss'
After spearheading three successful rock bands (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs and The Dead Weather), starting a record label (Third Man Records) and producing albums for legendary artists (Loretta Lynn and Wanda Jackson), it seemed that doing a solo album was a something Jack White simply needed to cross off on his bucket list. Blunderbuss ended up being one of 2012's biggest rock albums, and is one of the nominees for the Album Of The Year GRAMMY. So, why did he decide to go solo? Who was the album written about? Watch our latest Inside The Album Of The Year video below to find out.
We spoke with experts, including Leah Greenblatt of Entertainment Weekly, Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone, James Montgomery of MTV, author Alan Light (The Holy or the Broken: Leonard Cohen, Jeff Buckley, and the Unlikely Ascent of "Hallelujah", read about his book here), Booker and McCabe from AMP Radio and Stryker from KROQ weigh in on the guitar god's road to the GRAMMYS.
In the coming weeks, you can look forward to Inside The Album Of The Year installments for other nominees fun., Frank Ocean and Mumford & Sons. See our Black Keys installment here.
-- Brian Ives, Radio.com
for more features.


text:
Dan Le Batard's recent column makes various assertions about the finances of the Miami Marlins which echoes what Jeffrey Loria would have us believe. I don't know when Le Batard would ever reach the point of skepticism about his Marlins sources, but his patience is impressive. While he is critical of Marlins management on non-financial issues, what he accepts as fact about their finances just doesn't add up. He wrote:
The team overspent assuming we'd fill the ballpark [#1], which we didn't, and that meant losing about $40 million [#2] in that calamity of a season…. Unlike Micky Arison, who lost money every year he owned the Heat except last year, Jeffrey Loria doesn't have enough money [#3] to keep losing $40 million a year even as the ballpark appreciates his and the franchise's value [#4].
- #1 – Depends on the meaning of the word 'fill.' Marlins stadium capacity is 37,442. To have sold it out, or filled it, would have meant drawing 3 million fans. David Samson is on record with ESPN's business reporter Kristi Dosh noting that they expected attendance of 2.7 million [89% capacity], or about 500,000 higher than the 2.2 million [73% capacity] it turned out to be. Noting 89% vs 73% capacity may not be sexy, but it sure is more useful for the purposes of determining expected revenues.
- #2 – The lower than anticipated attendance would not even come close to accounting for a $40 million loss. It is misleading to imply that the 1st year attendance is to blame for dramatically altering the Marlins business model in year 2 of the stadium. Here's why.
Marlins revenues from gate receipts, as per Forbes, averaged between $15.1 & $16.3 per fan [gate receipts divided by attendance] between 2007 and 2011 [click on spreadsheet within blog post]. Assuming a healthy 25% increase in per fan revenue to $20 per fan in the new ballpark, multiplied times the missing 500,000 fans, equals a nice round $10 million in missing revenue. A more accurate description of what had to occur to make up for the missing fans was to dump Heath Bell's contract.
On the positive side, its good to know the Marlins are back to discussing the results of their yearly operations. Let's hope it's not a 1 year thing, given that 2013 is looking a lot like 2006 through 2009.
- #3 – Sloppy and misleading. Does Le Batard know how much money Loria has? Does 'money' refer to cash flow as opposed to assets? When exactly would Loria run out of 'money,' given the assumed losses? Answering any of those questions would be useful information. Or is Le Batard suggesting that 1, 2, or even 3 lean years would affect the net profitability of Loria's MLB investment, given the Revenue Sharing fat years which preceded it and the new ballpark which came after? Here's what is known:
- Loria purchased the team for $158.5 million in 2002, $120 million of that amount was the value assigned to his former Montreal franchise, which MLB had taken over.
- The remaining amount of the purchase price, $38.5 million, was a loan, $15 million of which was forgiven when a new stadium was not secured within 5 years.
- Loria's investment to take control of the Montreal franchise is estimated to have been $30 million.
- According to Forbes, the Marlins have accumulated $163 million in operating profits since 2002 through 2011.
- As of last year, Forbes had estimated the value of the Marlins franchise at $450 million.
- #4 – Bottom line is that Loria owns a MLB franchised estimated to be worth $450 million and his out of pocket investment to obtain the franchise is estimated to have been $53.5 million. Even if the $53.5 million figure is off 100%, it would still be an incredibly good deal. Also, any debt which would have been incurred in operating the Montreal and Marlins franchises through 2005, would have been completely or largely erased by the Revenue Sharing bonanza Loria exploited between 2006 and 2009, when the Marlins averaged $42 million annually in operating profits.
Loria is sitting on a $450 million franchise with no discernible debt which can be attributed to operating the MLB franchise itself. If he does not have enough cash flow to operate the Marlins, a logical assumption would have to be that he has used his MLB franchise to fund non-MLB personal interests. But even if those were the circumstances, he could still raise capital as needed by selling a portion of the franchise, as many other owners have done, and still be sitting on a huge payday when selling the club.
There's a story there for journalists with the inclination and financial background to explore. The whole Marlins financial saga is a great example of why Malcolm Gladwell's advice to young journalist's was so accurate. This from his Time interview in 2009:
One of my favorite columnists is Jonathan Weil, who writes for Bloomberg. He broke the Enron story, and he broke it because he's one of the very few mainstream journalists in America who really knows how to read a balance sheet…. He's unique. Most accountants don't write articles, and most journalists don't know anything about accounting. Aspiring journalists should stop going to journalism programs and go to some other kind of grad school. If I was studying today, I would go get a master's in statistics, and maybe do a bunch of accounting courses and then write from that perspective. I think that's the way to survive. The role of the generalist is diminishing. Journalism has to get smarter.
Yet while we wait–even at this point in the story–Loria still gets the advantage of having the loudest megaphone in Miami repeating his unbelievable assertions about the Marlins finances.
Le Batard's column is copied in full at end of post.
Posted on Sun, Nov. 18, 2012
Miami Marlins look foolish, immoral after trade
By Dan Le Batard
It would have felt less dishonest, and been a more prudent business and baseball strategy, if the Marlins had done what the cheap and awful Pittsburgh Pirates did, getting a taxpayer-funded ballpark without even bothering to inflate the payroll with fan appeasement. That way, the Marlins could at least argue that they were abiding by some sort of careful and consistent baseball philosophy, looking for cheap value, exploiting market inefficiencies and waiting to spend that extra ballpark revenue when they were closer to winning.
There would have been a public backlash, of course, but it wouldn't have felt and looked like the seismic sewage that swallowed them last week. Now they look like they are immoral and don't have any earthly idea what they are doing. There is only one thing worse than fans thinking their team is run by crooks: Fans thinking their team is run by incompetent ones.
The Marlins have never valued managers. But they traded prospects and spent millions on one they fired after a year — and will be paying for years to come.
The Marlins have always found effective closers without overspending. They spent millions on an old, fat one they sent away after a year — and will be paying for years to come.
Given that they also gave the Blue Jays $4 million in that everything-must-go fire sale, the Marlins might somehow pay people about as much to not work for them the next two years as they'll pay people to work for them next year.
What kind of way is that to run a business? Making dumb mistakes, and then spending millions to make those dumb mistakes go away? It is a reckless stupidity that will handcuff future team spending, and it will play defense against the Marlins being good in the future even if by some miracle they do start making smart decisions and finding cheap value. Say what you will about the outrage that surrounds management, these people have always been good businessmen — excellent at making money, anyway — and they have a new bejeweled ballpark in our broke city to prove it. But they went about turning their most recent profit in the loudest, worst and most inefficient way possible.
The Marlins spent money like drunk rock stars at the winter meetings on whatever free agents happened to be available, abandoning their core principles with a recklessness that, while exciting, was not only out of character but also debaucherous. This cruel and random sport's history is littered with expensive failures who thought it mattered to win the offseason. The Marlins did this to create a buzz that is now long forgotten, replaced instead by something the customers view as betrayal and deceit. This is actually the perfect team for the state of Florida, where we specialize in foreclosures.
Any healthy relationship has a foundation of trust, but here is where we are with our dysfunction: We don't trust middle management to get the right players. We don't trust upper management to keep those players if by some miracle they are the right ones. And we don't trust upper, upper management to fire middle or upper management for failing to acquire or keep the right players.
Instead, what the Marlins keep doing is firing lower management again and again — Joe Girardi and Fredi Gonzalez and Ozzie Guillen. It is like watching a CEO run his business into the ground with recklessness and embezzlement while continually blaming and firing the company's janitors.
The reason for those firings of managers has always been, well, you can't fire the team. But they just got done firing the manager and the team.
The Marlins last off-season were like a gluttonous fat man at the all-you-can-eat buffet, stacking the plate with his eyes and appetite without regard to practicality or the oncoming food coma. The team overspent assuming we'd fill the ballpark, which we didn't, and that meant losing about $40 million in that calamity of a season. Even though management didn't have to serial-killer slash the payroll, there were going to have to be cuts, so the team decided to take a wrecking ball to the blueprint and just start again. It is terrible for public relations and awful for fans, but they were going to cut $40 million somewhere. Unlike Micky Arison, who lost money every year he owned the Heat except last year, Jeffrey Loria doesn't have enough money to keep losing $40 million a year even as the ballpark appreciates his and the franchise's value. We might feel better if Jose Reyes was still here, but what's the point of that if you are going to have to trade your pitching staff to cut costs anyway?
This was businessmen behaving like businessmen. Sports owners didn't get rich in their cutthroat worlds by doing the moral thing. There are no charities in charge of sports teams. Although what the Marlins did feels immoral and indecent, it is up to our politicians to protect us from it instead of just assuming that people who have behaved badly before would act now in good faith. And we didn't even get to vote. You can't blame snakes for being snakes without putting responsibility on the zoo keepers.
And now? Well, this betrayal is going to echo and cost the Marlins paying customers. There is only one thing about this entire organization that anyone trusts today. It is Giancarlo Stanton's bat. That's it. Word is he didn't want to be here long-term even before this recent mess, preferring California. If the Marlins can't afford him, and he doesn't want to be here, you know what that means. His value is high, his salary is cheap, and the franchise is back to its core philosophy after all that drunken spending. You will never get more prospects for Stanton than you will today. And, already surrounded by howling, how much worse can the customer hostility possibly get?
Get ready to get angry all over again.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/18/v-print/3102863/miami-marlins-look-foolish-immoral.html#storylink=cpy


text:
Translations open with Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Title III ProgramParent Notification Letters
PARENTAL NOTIFICATIONSection 1111 9 (g)
Each Local Education Agency must inform parents of a limited English proficient child identified forparticipation in the district's ESOL program
Parent Notification LetterEnglish Translations
Simplified versus Traditional Chinese
Due to the variation of geographic areas in which Traditional and Simplified Chinese are employed as the written form of communication, we are providing the Parent Notification Letter in both formats. Please ascertain the needs of the individual families and provide the appropriate translation.2011-2012 A Parent's Guide, Maryland's plan forpreK-12 education
A Parent's GuideEnglish | Español2011-2012
2008 Public Prekindergarten in Maryland, A Parent's GuideEnglish | Amharic | Arabic | Chinese (Simplified) | Creole | French | Gujarati | Hindi | Korean | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Tagalog | Urdu | Vietnamese2008 HSA & Your ChildThe questions and answers on this publication explain the testing program and how it affects your child. If you don't find the answers to your questions here, ask your child's teacher or principal for help.English | Chinese | Korean | Spanish | Vietnamese | French2008 HSA and Your Child PostersEnglish | Chinese | Korean | Spanish | Vietnamese | French
Parent Involvement Matters AwardDecember 2007An annual program to honor Maryland parents who have made outstanding contributions to public education. English | Chinese | French | Korean | Spanish | Vietnamese
Maryland Classroom: Parent's Guide to the MSAOctober 2007 Vol. 13 No. 1English | Chinese | French | Korean | Spanish | Vietnamese
Leadership Succession Planning Guide for Maryland Schools (2006) - This innovative guide is a unique look at leadership succession issues in the public school sector, particularly the shortage of quality principals. It provides a stimulus for conversation for senior leadership in school systems, an outline for those educators interested in preparing their own leadership succession plan, and an actual leadership succession plan for an example school system.Traditional Chinese VersionSimplified Chinese Version2006 HSA ScoresChinese | French | Korean | Spanish | Vietnamese
2006 ALT-MSA Brochure TranslationsTranslations of the Alt-MSA 2006 Parent Brochure into the top 5 non-English languages in Maryland: Spanish, French, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.Alt-MSA Brochure- ChineseAlt-MSA Brochure- FrenchAlt-MSA Brochure- KoreanAlt-MSA Brochure- SpanishAlt-MSA Brochure- Vietnamese2005 Sample MSA Home ReportsEnglish Reading Math |Amharic Reading Math | Arabic Reading Math | Chinese Reading Math | French Reading Math | Gujarati Reading Math | Hindi Reading Math | Korean Reading Math | Russian Reading Math | Spanish Reading Math |Tagalog Reading Math | Urdu Reading Math |Vietnamese Reading MathM-PAC 2005 Preliminary RecommendationsClick HereRecommendations- Foreign TranslationsChinese|French|Korean|Spanish|VietnameseM-PAC SummaryChinese Cover Summary|French Cover Summary | Korean Cover Summary |Spanish Cover Summary| Vietnamese Cover Summary Your Child Goes to PREKINDERGARTEN EnglishAmharic | Arabic | Chinese | French | Gujarati | Hindi | Korean | Russian | Spanish | Tagalog | Urdu | Vietnamese Your Child Goes to KINDERGARTEN EnglishAmharic | Arabic | Chinese | French | Gujarati | Hindi | Korean | Russian | Spanish | Tagalog | Urdu | Vietnamese
Accommodations Documentation for English Language Learner (ELL) Students
(Translated documents will be revised soon.)
Amharic | Arabic | Chinese | Farsi | French | Gujarati | Hindi | Japanese | Korean | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Tagalog | Urdu | Vietnamese | Yoruba
Parents' Rights and Responsibilities in the Early Intervention System Brochure
Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework (2005) - This document serves as the philosophical basis for the work of the Division for Leadership Development. It defines instructional leadership through eight outcomes and provides evidences in practice that should be evident where such leadership exists.Traditional Chinese VersionSimplified Chinese Version
Archived Foreign Translations


text:
Monday, March 28, 2011
Ask and ye shall receive, Ray...
"Maybe the guys on "The Atheist Experience" were too nice. Someone needs to really take me down. It needs to be someone who is extremely eloquent and knowledgeable, and with a sarcastic and cutting tongue..."
While there simply wasn't enough time to address every failed bit of reasoning in Ray's comments, I think we did manage to hit some of the highlights. He accepts scientific findings, on the same grounds we do, unless those findings challenge or refute his existing beliefs - at which point he labels them faith-based, and rejects them. Yet while claiming he won't believe things on faith, the entire justification for his closed-minded certainty about the existence of god is predicated on faith...faith that his perception of the experience he attributes to a god are actually reliable.
This is not only hypocritical, it's a particularly nefarious bit of self-deception that results in some of the most painful examples of cognitive dissonance that I've ever seen. In any other area, Ray seems to grasp that independent confirmation is a grand tool for increasing the accuracy of our perceptions of reality, but on the subject of the biggest questions - his own experience not only needs no independent verification, it trumps all information to the contrary.
When presented with a good analogy (the language analogy for speciation), he's rendered silent...just long enough to regroup and reject the claim with another unjustified assertion.
After presenting many bad analogies, logically flawed arguments, appeals to "common sense", implying that we're lying about recognizing design/creation and countless bald assertions, Ray finished the call by refusing to acknowledge a simple and obvious error that would have, hopefully, led to a correction that would have improved his own ministry efforts.
In the conclusion of his book, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think", he evaluates the 4 major world religion by testing them against what the Bible says. When I pointed out that this was a dishonest assessment, as it presupposes Christianity in order to affirm it (and that a Muslim could presuppose Islam in order to demonstrate that the tenets of Christianity don't resolve the problems intrinsic to Islam), Ray denied this and simply stated that it wasn't dishonest, because you have to begin with the Bible.
He responded to an exposition of a circular argument by simply saying "no" and restating that circular argument.
He's so mired in his certainty that he can't even see obvious errors like this - errors which have absolutely nothing to do with the truth of his claims. This was a simple attempt to get him to recognize a logical fallacy, in simplest terms, but he simply can't break free from his chains long enough to view the argument on its own merits.
Meanwhile, he acknowledges that his personal experience couldn't be justification for someone else and that it's the individual's own fault if they didn't have the same experience he has....and he does all of this while claiming that anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions he's reached is unreasonable or possibly insane.
Clearly he has a different understanding of reason, than I do.
Common Sense, Ray, isn't what you seem to think it is. It's not a reliable pathway to truth, it's a visceral assessment of information with respect to what an individual already understands about reality. It's a quick, gut-check of whether or not the new information is likely to be reliable. It's not the end of inquiry, it's the first step - and until you're ready to go beyond that first step, you don't get to claim to be more reasonable or sane than those who do.
It's a tool that is forged from critical thinking skills and honed by inquiry and investigation. It's a tool that is dulled by appeals to absolute certainty and a stubborn refusal to change one's views as the evidence dictates. Refusing to recognize that there's a possibility that you're wrong...is like leaving it sheathed.
I don't dislike Ray, though I know others do. Like a puzzle with a missing piece, he used to frustrate me and annoy me - because I was busy trying to solve it. Now, I'm just trying to find that missing piece.
If we do this again, I think I'd like to start by getting his take on logic, reason and fallacies. We may have to go back to basics before we have hope of moving forward.
So, there you have it. Not as eloquent as the Professor you were taunting, nor as sarcastic. If I get the opportunity, I'll ask Richard Dawkins how long he'd have lasted in that conversation before simply pointing out that it's pointless to attempt a discussion with an unreasonable, woefully uninformed buffoon who rigidly asserts his certainty while being blind to his credulity. One wonders if a child with his fingers in his ears is any less receptive to information that Ray.
90 comments:
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that he didn't notice that his every argument was demolished.ReplyDelete
Ray Comfort said look at the beauty of the trees, birds, seasons etc.ReplyDelete
What I was thinking "look at the beauty of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, meteorites, and diseases & plagues."
I wonder why Ray didn't mention these? (I know why)
At some points I just wanted to face-palm at some of the things Ray was saying. I think you two handled it very civilly.ReplyDelete
I always find it funny that Christians talk about how faith is such a wonderful thing, and yet, in conversions with rationalists, they always say things like, "Well, atheists have faith in X," as if faith is now suddenly something reprehensible (which it is).
It's as Matt always says, (most) religious people use reason/logic in every other aspect of their life, they just make a special exception for their particular version of religion.
It's really odd (and somewhat entertaining) to watch them tap dance around questions like "How old do you think the earth is?" because they know exactly where all of the evidence points, and yet they have this pesky Bible telling them something contradictory to the facts.
Yeah, it's somewhat amusing that he seems to think that he's run the gauntlet and is ready to resume his pursuit of gaining notoriety by having Dawkins address him.ReplyDelete
While I certainly don't consider us the front-line for Dawkins, it's simply absurd to think that after having your fallacies exposed on a public access show that you're somehow ready to take on one of the world's most prominent and sought-after atheists.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Matt, I just want to say you and Russel did a great job..far better than someone like Dawkins could hope to do. Dawkins is good at science but he is not a great debater. I think you are easily the best spokesman for our side out of everybody, including Hitchens & others. Keep it up. :)ReplyDelete
Matt: I know you guys were strapped for time, but to me it seemed a little unfortunate that you brought up that point with only a minute or two left. Specifically, for those of us who haven't read his book, we have no idea what you were arguing against.ReplyDelete
I am a major fan of yours, and a major anti-fan of the banana man. I fully trust that you didn't take anything out of context. But I don't suppose you could give us some context for your comments there, please? What does he say about the "major four" religions, and how doeshe presuppose the Bible?
> If I get the opportunity, I'll ask Richard Dawkins how long he'd have
> lasted in that conversation before simply pointing out that it's
> pointless to attempt a discussion with an unreasonable, woefully
> uninformed buffoon who rigidly asserts his certainty while being blind
> to his credulity.
Unfortunately, Dawkins still has you beat on that front. He's lasted 70 minutes
This may be what he's talking about:
Why Christianity? (Way of the Master)
Section: Inside the plane
@JT: Seems to be. Also, wow, not only is that dishonest, it's OBVIOUSLY ineffective and wrong. W-(ReplyDelete
Well, hopefully a few fence sitters watching were exposed to how fallacious Creationism is. That's really all we can hope for, as I doubt anyone will be able to change Ray's viewpoint.ReplyDelete
Great job!
"What does he say about the "major four" religions, and how doeshe presuppose the Bible?"
It's pretty simple. He wants us to consider them to determine which one of the 4 we should pick. He then assumes that the Bible is true and points out that Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam don't get you to heaven.
My point was that one could point out that Christianity doesn't address your Karma, or your duty to Allah, etc.
Ray mentioned that you can't be sure that a person is truly a christian, including himself, and that those you learn from may be deceiving you, then how does he know so well that he wasn't deceived by his own "interaction" with god in 1972 as well as with his religious mentors? How can he claim that he is a "real" christian?ReplyDelete
All Ray demonstrated is that he's not concerned with the truth, and is - in the respect that an experience of his that is apparently hallucinatory is causing him to otherwise ignore reality - actually insane.ReplyDelete
(I mean, we stick people in straight jackets for making poor life decisions based on the idea that imaginary characters talk to them. Why is Jesus different?)
So good on that.
Ray comfort has never been a very good apologist, if such a thing actually exists. He is just well known for being confrontational with atheists and wild publicity stunts.ReplyDelete
All his arguments have been consistent and straightforwardly flawed. Many pod casts I have listened to recommend Ray's arguments as a good starting level for counter-apologetics. Matt and Russel debating Ray was like employing a Navy SEAL team to teach a high school gym class.
At least the onlookers can have fun taking apart the easy arguments and the show can cash in on some of the comfort "celebrity". Based on the evidence, expecting Ray to realize every one of assertions was demolished as he went is just expecting too much.
Well Blasted thing ate my post. I hereby express anger.ReplyDelete
Comments about the show, abbreviated.
Great Discussion
Would have liked to hear Ray's answers to Russell. Matt made good points but stepped in over Russell's sometimes before he could make them. Would love to hear what Tracie would have said to him.
Best moment was "You got me, I took a flu shot".
the "common sense" argument is so ridiculous. Common sense used to state that a metal ship would sink and a metal object weighing tens of tons would never fly.ReplyDelete
But it's all sort of pointless to try to hold him to reason. He will argue for amusement and to annoy you, but if he is ever cornered, he will just fall back on the simple assertion that all these semantics are trivial because he knows God and you would agree with him if you did, too.
Hopefully Ray will come on again some day. You guys spoke with him about different subjects, which was fantastic, but it might be interesting to spend an hour with him just on one topic. He loves to have the conversation bounce around from one thing to another--and that's because all his answers are canned soundbites. What throws him off is to discuss ONE point for an extended period of time. If you brought him on to discuss, say, evolution and only evolution, or, say, the authority of the Bible, I think he'd self-destruct. He's totally unable to have an actual conversation about these issues, let alone a debate.ReplyDelete
Favorite quote, just about 21:24 (on the podcast mp3 file):ReplyDelete
Matt: "Why do you believe in medicine and not on other aspects of science like evolution?"
RC: "Because my health doesn't depend on it..."
Which can be paraphrased as: "Because if I lie about this, I will freaking DIE! And if I lie about everything else, I'll be pretty much OK."
That's a pretty good summing up of the show Matt. I thoroughly enjoyed the show live and watched it again this lunch time with a work colleague (who, as a science teacher, was very impressed by your definition of the 'scientific method' btw).ReplyDelete
As has already been said, Ray simply wasn't up to addressing any of your arguments in any meaningful way and I personally don't think he's at all bothered about that. I'm with Richard Dawkins and Martin and feel too much attention is given to this person who clearly isn't interested in the truth, having meaningful debates or any other type of philosophical discussion unless it promotes Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort's religion is simply Ray Comfort and if he's good at anyhting, he's good at taking advantage of opportunities that increase the fame, and ultimately the fortune, of the religion that is Ray Comfort.
Why did he debate Thunderfoot?.....to access Thunderfoot's 70,000 or so subscribers.
Why has he decided to do the AE now after being asked numerous times in the past?.....because he now sees you in 'the big league' of atheists after being contacted recently by Richard Dawkins.
He sees the Thunderfoot interview, the AE and the Pat Robertson show simply as stepping stones to increase his fame, notoriety and wealth (although I know he hasn't been directly paid at least for the first two of those) and will take whichever road is necessary to give him the narcissitic fix that I feel he so craves, even if it's through him looking like a buffoon from his banana gaffe.
Ray Comfort is an enigma. He's incredibly egotistical but can be self depracating at the same time. He can be likeable but professes obnoxious opinions. He talks with feeling but his religious rhetoric is clearly shallow and meaningless and it's for these reasons that I believe him to be nothing more than a charlatan and a leech who lives off other people's hard work and more importantly, fame.
PS. After just reading his delusional summing up of the show on his blog where he's attempting to put a positive spin on the evening's proceedings, it's simply reinforced my views about the man.
The one thing I wish you hadn't brought up was abortion. Like Ray said, even if he wasn't a Christian he could argue against it. And I agree, even though I support it, there are good secular arguments against it. I think it would have been much better to bring up gay marriage, I know he is against it from reading his blog. That is much harder to argue against from a secular point.ReplyDelete
Still a very good job, plus I think I understand Ray's thinking a bit more. He seems to act like a conspiracy theorist. He has tapped into this secret knowledge: IE his personal experience with god. The rest of us are just being tricked by science. Which for him is like the government for someone who is into conspiracies. They don't think everything the government does is part of it, but there are branches that do.
Which is why he is able to accept things like medicine, while rejecting things like evolution.
I tell ya, you just can pin this guy down on anything. It's rather telling to read his blog and his "interpretation" of the events - it all seems pretty smarmy and passive-aggressive. After conceding point after point, and backpedaling with terrible analogies, and agreeing that they don't work, he still manages to think (or at least try to sell) that he somehow didn't get his ass handed to him.ReplyDelete
I'd love to hear him on the show again, but from an organizational standpoint, if he's just going to use the appearance to pine after "bigger fish" like Dawkins (and I use quotes because I, like many, don't think Dawkins is that good of a debater), then I might kindly tell him to fuck off. However, I guess it swings both ways in that the AE gets some attention brought in its direction as well.
If the opportunity does arise though, I agree with Matt that you should really nail down some definitions of logic and reason with him - but be sure to add one thing: get him to answer whether or not he cares about honest, demonstrable truth. All of which needs to be done before any further discussion begins.
I just watched that Dawkins vs Creatiost woman thing on youtube, and it was painful to watch. I think he could do sixty minutes with Ray hands easily. I think he patience was honed by being an educator, answering stupid questions every day.ReplyDelete
Well stated, Matt. I really wish you guys could get him down there some day, because I would love to be there for that.ReplyDelete
I listened to the show today and you guys did a good job of showing his hypocrisy and that his own validation for Christianity is just his special revelation. You only had so much time and both you and Russell did a good job of keeping him on point and not letting him dodge questions.
I can't wait to get down there and see you guys again.
The part of the interview that bothered me the most was when he said Matt was never really a Christian. It's such a ridiculous catch-all.ReplyDelete
"The one thing I wish you hadn't brought up was abortion."ReplyDelete
On reflection, I should have gone with same-sex marriage. It's a slightly better line to take.
That said, my point wasn't that Christians are anti-choice and atheists are pro-choice...it was that the beliefs have impact and when people take actions to legislate their opinions in a way that violates other people's rights, they're part of the problem.
Incidentally, anti-choice secularists are often part of the problem, too.
Great show guys, I know some people didn't enjoy that show as much as others in the past, but no matter how good the interviewers are a bad guest is simply a bad guest.ReplyDelete
In regards to your point to Ray about the negative political influence of religion, perhaps another aspect you could talk about is the proposal to teach Creationism in schools. I'm pretty sure Ray would vote for someone promising to do that and would be a easy point to use to illustrate the absolute negative impact this would have.
Again, top work Matt & Russel, you guys are brilliant to watch and I look forward to seeing you guys on Ustream each week more than my favourite shows on regular TV.
I found watching the show frustrating at times, precisely because Comfort waltzed right by several points that should have been game-enders. I understand that the hosts were attempting to be civil and allow Comfort to have his say, but I wish they would have called more explicit attention to Comfort's errors and spent more time explaining precisely why they are errors.ReplyDelete
For example, every single time Comfort fell back onto "well, god has revealed it," the hosts should have reminded him, "but we're talking about how to demonstrate it to someone without the experience of direct revelation" and made him re-answer the question without falling back onto revelation. I know the point was established once at the very beginning of the hour, but the point needs to be reinforced every time he tries to weasel out of defending his claims.
A debate is, presumably, intended to be directed toward those who are on the fence, who are to be swayed to one side or another. While the flaws of things like the argument from ignorance and the watchmaker argument are clear as day to any atheist watching the program (who has probably spent some time thinking about them before), I would imagine that these flaws are not immediately apparent to the average person who may or may not be watching this debate in the future.
The speed at which things like the watchmaker argument were covered and then swept aside somewhat startled me, and I think it would have been useful to spend some more time discussing the elementary flaws in these arguments (though I understand that time was an issue).
At any rate, I think both Matt and Russell did a commendable job handling the call/interview, and they should take my comments as "constructive criticism," if they take them as anything at all. There were a few moments in the discussion that I thought were particularly good, including the two analogies (evolution vs. language and Comfort's acceptance of medical science vs. his non-acceptance of a science that doesn't suit him). Again, I wish the point of these nice analogies was hammered home more clearly for a viewer who is not already an atheist, but they were very nicely made.
I enjoyed the show, and I look forward to seeing other debate-style episodes in the future, if any other apologist is brave enough to call in.
I was surprised nobody brought up the infinite regress of Ray's "something can't come from nothing" argument. He either has to explain why God doesn't apply to this and concede that at least one thing comes from nothing, or be left with the same uncertainty he "dislikes" that the atheists have.ReplyDelete
He also insinuated that Christians such as himself were more moral than everyone else many times without it being questioned.
Other than those two things great job though, I learned a lot about what Ray is all about from this.
I watched the episode tonight. That was a pleasure.ReplyDelete
On a side note, I loved the language analogy, because I am a bit of a linguist myself.
I don't think Dawkins is a great debater and he certainly wouldn't be familiar enough with Ray's ridiculous routines to make the debate worth anyones time.ReplyDelete
Hitchens would be much more entertaining.
Please be sure Matt and Russel get this.ReplyDelete
I also wish you could have had 90 minuets with Ray, but with the time constraints you were under, I was absolutely stunned at how efficiently you were able duke it out with him.
So methodically do you correct, not only what is wrong with whatever point he attempts to make, but the MEANS by which he attempts to make it. This is truly what you bring to the table. if i had to watch him debate someone who would simply rebut his point i would have been screaming at my computer "he doesn't get to make that point! back up back up! that dosn't deserve rebuttle!"
So thank you, Matt and Russel. It may have been a lost cause, but it may also be a sixty minuet milestone in your cause. a turning point in HIS career at the very least.
Oh and by the way =] I saw your eyes gravitate towards that hold button so many times... .i feel your pain, man, I feel your pain.
You guys did a great job. I think Ray Comfort has a dumb ray that makes everyone who hears him a little bit dumber and you were able to combat it well.ReplyDelete
Thank you AE for arranging this debate and special thanks to Matt, Russell and Ray for hosting/guest-ing.ReplyDelete
Just my two cents inspired by the comments of others...
Apologists don't debate atheists for the goal of converting decided atheists or finding truth, but rather to confirm and repeat the agreed constructed narrative of their religious in-group. Deeply indoctrinated Christians would have believed Comfort "won" because they heard him use their narratives and catch-phrases. Very much like a political line "Repeat, and when it's debunked, repeat again: victory goes to whoever speaks last." Argumentum Ad Nauseam is a theist's best friend.
Considering that the purpose of debates by people like Comfort is to retell theistic narrative, it's much easier to see why apologists stick to such painfully flawed stories like "personal feelings of revelation beats objective evidence for reliability"; self-refuting narratives like the Watchmaker argument; and theistic wordplay like describing Biblical creation story timelines as "more precise" instead of being "unchanging". They're debating to reinforce narratives rather than to test the validity of ideas.
The only way to really subvert the narrative of a theist is to turn the narrative on its head... which becomes less viable as the theist becomes more indoctrinated. This is probably why the most indoctrinated are baffled by falling church numbers and rising atheism despite all the retellings and debates, while all the undecided are listening to the discussions and deciding for themselves that theistic narratives don't hold.
Such debates are thus really for the minds of the undecided whose choice is between "Narratives that will provide comfort and consistency but are often invalid and unreliable" and "Ideas that will provide reliable information but that are constantly under review making them intellectually and emotionally challenging".
This is why the patience and continuing calm debunking of poor logic; bad ideas; myth mislabeled as fact; and pseudo-science is so important. And the whole team at AE is fantastic at doing just that - keep up the great work.
While you went a bit easier on him than he deserved, I understand the need to at least attempt civility. A good show, it just flew by.ReplyDelete
Does Ray really believe the crap he says?ReplyDelete
Who knows.
Is he really as stupid as he sounds?
Who knows.
Does he have a huge following?
Does he make money from propagating stupidity?
Is he richer than all the AE hosts put together?
My biggest problem with Ray's argument is the supposition that the universe, and therefore everything, was "created", and then starts his argument. That is step #2. Step #1 is to prove, or at least demonstrate, why you think that the universe was created, as opposed to always existing. If we start with the idea that nothing was "created", the universe has always, and will always, exist, then that negates his whole painter, watchmaker, creation argumentReplyDelete
Ray's a solid talker. I think an average religious person wouldn't have thought he did terribly.ReplyDelete
I would like to see another episode with Matt Vs Ray that starts with "Tell us what you believe and why you believe it." and ends with "No, no, no! You're done." :)ReplyDelete
Overall, AE is a great show and this was one of the best episodes. So good, I watched it again tonight. Matt and Russell covered several topics and were very civilized. Ray was rather accepting and accommodating, but I think that that is merely because he is SO deluded by his beliefs that nothing will sway them. If God really appeared before Ray and said that Ray was wrong, Ray would not agree.
It has been mentioned a couple of times that Richard Dawkins is an excellent scientist, butReplyDelete
does not have strong debating skills. There is a clip from The Young Turks in which Cenk Uygur comments on a conversation between Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins. I found it really quite interesting and informative. It is called--Bill O'Reilly Debates Against Science - and WINS! Don't be put off by the title. It explains how O'Reilly uses his well developed debating skills to--flip arguements on their head, ignore logic, and use emotion and debating tactics to his advantage. He does it well. I think that Matt and the AE team would be the perfect ones to take on bill O'Reilly. They wouldn't let him get away with his tricks. It would be great fun to watch Bill O'Reilly spinning his wheels trying to regain control of the conversation.
As I was listening to the podcast today, I there was one bit that made me stop and go back, was when Ray was dismissing science because it changes over the years. Then Matt counters with the fact that the same thing applies to medicine, and Ray admits that he relies on medicine in spite of it changing all the time, and the reason he does that is that his life depends on believing in medicine. I think that was a much bigger concession than was made of it. Of course, being that there is nothing logical about Ray's total argumentation, I doubt this would phase him.ReplyDelete
- Anonymous3/28/2011 11:03 PM
Hi friend,ReplyDelete
I'm Sagar Gorijala from India. I'm an Atheist with a difference and it's I actually proved that god(s) can't exist and I want rest of the World to know my theory and couldn't achieve it and as a fellow Atheist I seek your help in doing so. Here is my theory http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
Honestly this won't be something that consumes or wastes your precious time, it's worth more than gold or diamonds. It's for real and this time around theists can't fool around with their ignorance. It has been more than ten long years and I couldn't let the World know my theory. I started it in 1999 December - 2000 January and had it ready in the month of January 2000 since then I tried a lot but couldn't let rest of the World know my theory. If there is a way to join hands with your blogroll please let me know. We are fellow atheists and I need your help.
Everything he said was just a big circle.ReplyDelete
A Christian is a person who believes God. And you know a person believes God because they're a Christian.
Everything God says is true. You know this because it's in the Bible. And you know the Bible is true because everything God says is true.
The universe has a creator because it is a creation. And you know it is a creation because creations have creators. And things that have creators are obviously creations. Ergo, the universe has a creator.
People have souls because they have life. Life is a soul because a soul is also life. Therefore, an afterlife exists (WTF?)
Of course, I'm just paraphrasing from my own understanding of what he said, but his answers never really had much more depth than that.
It's like his head is inside of a box. And no matter how simply you try to explain the fallacy of his argument, he just can't understand because it exists in the space outside of the box. And because it's a very small box, his thoughts, and therefore his explanations, are never going to be any wider or deeper than what the sides allow him.
If you try to tell him to make an argument that doesn't have the presupposition of a god being real, not only would he be unable to do so (for obvious reasons), but he must think you incredibly foolish for requesting it. After all, how can you ask or answer a question about anything when God is everything? Everything he says is just going to come back around to that presupposition.
Obviously it's very frustrating to listen to, but at the same time kind of sad that a grown adult man can be reduced to such a state of mind just by being exposed to really bad ideas.
I can't help feeling he doesn't believe a word he says.There's just something about him which really makes me doubt his sincerity particularly when I see him on video,but then Poe's Law and all that.ReplyDelete
@Matt, Russ, & Crew. Awesome show with the Banana Man! Definitely a part II is neccessary. Solid rebuttals and questions and you guys never let him slither out! When will Kirkoduck be calling in? I watch you guys on YT all the time! All you guys are awesome!ReplyDelete
Video is up
Matt D said: He wants us to consider them to determine which one of the 4 we should pick. He then assumes that the Bible is true and points out that Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam don't get you to heaven.ReplyDelete
My point was that one could point out that Christianity doesn't address your Karma, or your duty to Allah, etc.
That reminds me of the kid a few years back who, as a science project IIRC, set out to "prove" that Christians were more moral than anyone else. He did, sort of, but sadly the biggest flaw in his methodology was that he used only the 10 Commandments as a basis, putting anyone who does not adhere to some form of Abrahamic religion at a slight disadvantage.
Matt & Russell -- As a practicing trial lawyer, I think you guys were masterful in your Ray Comfort interview. When a witness is determined to be evasive, the best you can do is pin him down on key points, which you did exceptionally well.ReplyDelete
What you ought to do now is go through and annotate the transcript with Ray's concessions (e.g., that the biblical "kind" is the scientific "species").
Anyway: great job. It's almost impossible to make headway when someone is determined to lie and evade, and you successfully threw Ray off script again and again.
Hi, this is Aaron from Malaysia. I don't get to call in because of the time difference but I download your podcasts religiously (lol!).ReplyDelete
This was a great show! I've listened to it twice already. Matt and Russel did a great job. Their styles really complemented each other and both had moments of brilliance.
Ray is really good at what he does. He doesn't try to convince the listener into agreeing with him. Instead he uses his random sound byte approach to confuse the listener.
Matt and Jeff's strategy (was it premeditated?) of never actually going in for the kill proved to be the best against a person like Ray. If they went and whacked him royally on any particular point it would have killed the rest of the discussion and he could go back and claim that they were ignorant of his full message. This way, just about every angle has been covered. Watch (or listen) to the episode again and you'll see what I mean.
Anyway, great job guys! Hope you guys do a deconstruction of the debate on the NonProphets one of these days.
To be a critic of Science's process of converging on correct answers is to have a problem with the very act of learning, itself.ReplyDelete
When we build maps of geographic locations, we often start with rough outlines and sketches, and as we gather more data, the map is refined. There is no other way to approach knowledge. The map isn't wrong because we improve it.
We don't say that a person just learning how to play a violin is invalid because they don't start out at 100% at time=0. That would be asinine. The fact they change (improve) over time, isn't an invalidation of their ability to play reasonably well at time=3years. Nor is the fact that they'll be even better at time=10years invalidate their ability at time=3years.
This objection to science is inane.
I would love to ask Ray, if he would agree that it's possible, Satan (or Loki) is trying to deceive him in his "knowing the truth". That's the problem with personal experience - no one can verify your claims, especially if they don't mesh with reality.ReplyDelete
Oh and next time: PIN him down on one subject! It was like watching you trying to catch a rabbit.ReplyDelete
To me, the most telling point of the show, was when he asked about the beginning of the universe. He specifically told Matt he couldn't say "I don't know".ReplyDelete
That's really his entire worldview in a nutshell. The thought of not having absolute certainty is repulsive to him, you could hear that in his voice.
Watching the interview a second time, I think it was a good stategy to be more polite than aggresive. That might increase the chance of more high profilic nutcases calling in. "People don't like to sit on chairs where somebody else has already pissed on."ReplyDelete
Nevertheless it was a good demonstration what a buffoon Ray is.
@way12go - Speaking as an atheist and a scientific layperson, your "theory" falls short of worthy of the title. It's a page of bald assertions, many of them in contradiction with the best information that the most learned experts in their fields have found. Not that they're automatically right just because their experts, but they've got evidence. You don't. You have a list of bald assertions and a few syllogisms, both without evidentiary support. You've done little more than make an ontological argument with the opposite conclusion.ReplyDelete
Bad argumentation is bad argumentation, whether or not we agree with your stated conclusion.
I'm sorry to say that I found this last video "unpleasant" to watch, to the point where I turned it off half way through.ReplyDelete
Maybe this was my mistake and Ray actually made an interesting argument later on but the "pain" on hearing decades old arguments regurgitated again and again was just to much.
(for amusement sake, once you guys get your CGI up and running I suggest a tally board so you can record any time you hear a repeat of an already refuted argument)
The issue I feel with professional apologists like Ray Comfort is that he has a financial interest dependant on promoting his doctrine.
Even if you show the problems with his arguments he will never concede them because his financial well-being is dependant on them.
This unfortunately makes for boring conversation/debate as the same old (broken) tools are brought out again and again to prop up their world view.
There is no value in that conversation except for the apologist, and only for their own self promotion.
Anyway, sorry for the negativity but Ray is somewhat an embarrassment as I to am from Christchurch.
So I apologise for inflicting Ray on the rest of the world. (You Yankees can take responsibly for Kirk though)
Ray comfort is absolutely correct. You can never take down a presuppositionReplyDelete
I almost fell over laughing when Ray said something like "Oh you're not going to quote some book..." re scientific evidence.ReplyDelete
You had a ninja debate, defeating Ray without him even knowing.ReplyDelete
Is Comfort his real name? I mean... really? Because... yeah.ReplyDelete
So anyway, I get that the target audience in debates tends to be the bystanders rather than the opposition, but AUGH! How can you stand to converse with such a person? How do you not lose your temper with someone who sits through your logically thought out and examined arguments before saying essentially, "I think you're wrong, therefore you are." How?
You guys deserve medals for surviving the brown tide.
Giving Comfort time is equal to giving him money.ReplyDelete
Every time he gets atheist attention, he gets more money from his cult followers.
I thought the host choice was great and you guys did a great job. I don't think it would have been professional or lasted very long if you would have insulted his ideas like some of the youtube fans wanted. It's better to let him talk/discuss both his and your side. Its obvious to us that he's the unreasonable one when he says he can't take science of faith yet he never saw the resurrection and yet he believes that with absolute certainty.ReplyDelete
I thought it was great to find out that he does accept science as long as it doesn't disprove whatever it is he believes. His rebuttle saying his health didn't have an impact on his beliefs is a lie though. Why would he get medical treatment or see a doctor regularly for antibiotics if he thought this god stuff is real? He is one of the only "true christians" out there. Dude would just pray for healing.
My only complaint is that you gave Ray as a 'professional' guest more freedom than others. If he was just a caller you would have interrupted to clarify the points rather than 'let me finish' ad nausium.ReplyDelete
"Common sense" dictates that the sun goes around the Earth. Just look at the sky! Don't believe the science; unless I see the Earth from afar and watch it go around, I won't believe you.ReplyDelete
I find this to be a useful argument when confronted with this claim.
I try to think to myself: how could he see himself as victorious? Could it be that Matt acknowledged that "even the most intelligent man on the face of the earth can't create a grain of sand from nothing?". Was it because Matt acknowledged that science can be wrong?ReplyDelete
As a former Christian, in my fallacious thinking, I would have celebrated these concessions victoriously.
Having so many activities in your daily life revolve around trying to convince people to "put on their parachute" and celebrating your own parachute, it becomes easy to look over your presumptuousness. In fact, with enough activity revolving around it, you become completely oblivious to it.
This is for Russell and Matt:ReplyDelete
Go to Youtube and search on Relativity of Wrong, posted by c0nc0rdance. It is a version of Isaac Asimov's famous response to someone on why, when science is "wrong", it is different than the common use of the word wrong.
Science successively approximates reality. Moving closer to the truth is part of the process. I know both of you know this, but you may enjoy Asimov's articulation of the issue.
I've been directed several times by my atheist/skeptic buds to your show. Really enjoy it. From a critical perspective, you guys do a good job of accessing the regular folk. I personally wish all atheists stayed within the "angry white elitist guy" framework . . . a reluctant kudos for the exodus.ReplyDelete
Curious on a few points:
A. Outside of Comfort's general mediocrity in discussing evolution (it's a Calvinist/Sola Scriptura problem), why the conflation of "evolution = no God" and "evolution = unnecessary God?" Your advocacy clearly suggests the former.
B. The language analogy. I don't get it. Language is a cultural construction. By definition it requires a shared origin. Your analogy assumes evolution requires agreement?
C. On evolution proper: Why is it so hip to use evolution as a valued decision calculus? At worst it's racist, at best it's anthropocentric. Why do you think science abandoned humyn genus grouping 20 years ago and is silent on "advancement" rhetoric? Yet the atheist spends so much time on its "progressive, moral and intellectual value." It's still cool to save the dolphins, but screw the porpoise? I say leave it in the lab and save us from a future filled with Firefly class smuggling ships and nasty Reaver Zombies.
D. On God and Slavery: Why is scriptural hermeneutics held to a higher standard of "evolution" than your interpretation of science? You concede that knowledge is always in transition, why does the Christian have to stay neatly placed inside the Sola Scriptura box, regardless of epistemology? BTW: Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (with some kind of grammatical/interpretive harness)? Maybe Moses fucked up on slavery—so did Thomas Jefferson. Would it logically follow that Moses couldn't have a relationship with God? If so, Thomas Jefferson couldn't have a relationship with Democracy. And for your delight, assume both are equally pretend flying tea pots full of spaghetti on the dark side of the moon.
Not sure how long my comment can be. . . I'll continue later. Again, show is cool.
Great debate, Matt and Russell.ReplyDelete
Pastor: The evidence suggests that grains of sand arose from shells and rocks ground down over millions of years, after the earth was formed by the sun, after the sun was formed from stars that exploded, after the universe created stars from expanding matter, after the universe was formed, after the Big Bang occurred, from an infinitely tiny singularity with infinite gravity. In other words, a grain of sand was not formed from nothing but from something, and is has a long history of pedigree that ends in a question about whether the universe formed from something as well. It is certainly no proof that a particular version of a particular god created a grain of sand from nothing thus showing itself to be superior to humans in at least that respect. The logical corollary is "Can god create an Irish Stew without help from a human?"
I was a little perturbed that you told Ray that you had never met "god" and that your extension to this was almost lost in Ray's gleeful babbling at the apparent concession.
If Ray had asked me whether I had met "god" I would have replied with something like "I was once quite convinced that I had. It seemed that I had believed the right things and said the right prayers and had all the right signs that god had accepted me. But now that I understand how easily the brain can fool itself, especially when it is feeling ecstatic, I realize that it was just a delusion. How do _you_ know that your similar convictions are not just as much a normal human brain failing?
Even though I had a transcript of the show posted on the Iron Chariots forum on Tuesday. I just finished doing a final listen through and edit on it now.ReplyDelete
In the process of doing this, I have come up with a few observations.
When I saw how many word transpositions, and simple paraphrases that I had made while typing, it made me wonder how much does a story change when it is taken down days, months or years later if I made these errors just seconds after hearing the actual spoken words? Even if some events of the Bible did happen, how accurately can they really be represented? I know this is not a new idea, but this really highlighted it for me again.
Ray was not exactly what I expected, at times he actually comes off as a gentleman. A gentleman that I feel sorry for, because his preconceptions keep him from seeing the simple beauty that is evolution, and understanding the true method of science. He has no way of seeing how much wonder he is missing out on in life.
Also, I think Matt doesn't realize his own genius. One of my favorite parts that illustrates this was just after he gave Ray the analogy of evolution to language.
Ray- OK
Matt- OK, ... the ... I wasn't expecting an OK
It was elegant, and I think Ray did actually understand some of it, but I don't think he retained it or followed it all the way through, very sad.
And Russell, after coming in at all the right times you would then craft a question to control the flow and try to coax some actual thought from Ray, the Socratic method, brilliant.
Thank you both for an excellent show.
Once Ray pulled the beautiful flowers proof, yall were sunk.ReplyDelete
I fell to my knees and knew the lord.
A good point. And what surprised me was, that Matt has given a similar answer like yours before. So I'm puzzled why he didn't insist on the fact that he then believed to be communicating with god.
This wouldn't have given Ray the opportunity to pull his 'no true christian" card. I guess it's a valid strategy but then you'd have to stress the point how he knows, he is right.
I have to listen to it again, but I fairly shure, Ray didn't concede that he might be wrong and that is 'divine' experience in the 70's was a mild stroke or something other than a god reaching out to him.
Watch out for stinging bees.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Not having yet listened to the discussion, I am hesitant to mention this as it may have been covered. However, reading the comments here it appears that Ray Comfort was willing to admit that he believed in medicine but not other areas of science that would contradict his views. Might that have been an opening to ask how he would explain the recent bacterial mutations that have created "superbugs" that are resistant to antibiotic agents? It seems to me this is a pretty good example of evolution being witnessed in a single lifetime by the medical field.ReplyDelete
I'm a bit disappointed by this interview, mainly because Ray Comfort was such an incompetent debater. Once you got past his soundbites, most of his arguments came across as ignorant, contradictory or hypocritical.ReplyDelete
Why can't Atheist Experience ever interview a real scientist is also a theist? At least maybe we can hear some novel theist arguments for once.
bacteria just won't do for these denialists. They'll sit back and smugly ask you to come back when you've got bacteria evolving all the way to a fish. The genetic trail and the plain plausibility of gradual change are something they are very good at ignoring.
Penguinman: At least maybe we can hear some novel theist arguments for once.ReplyDelete
This presupposes the existence of such a thing. Much like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, any rumors of its existence have not been substantiated with evidence.
In your interview with Ray Comfort, you asserted that abortion is an individual's right. As a long time viewer of AE, I know that your opinions are always based on well thought out reasons and I'm sure that you must have a rational argument for this stance as well. Unfortunately, I have never seen you specifically address your reasoning for this particular position. You'll have to forgive me if you have, but the sampling of videos on YouTube only encompass so much. This is not to say that you have not given some reasons for your position. You have asserted on more than one occasion that an individual has the right to do what she wishes with her own body and an outside party has no right to interfere with this. In this respect I agree with you. Yet you have also said in speaking with a caller regarding individual rights, "my freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose". Therefore, I must conclude that your opinion is that an abortion does not infringe upon anyone's rights. And this is where I seek further clarification on your position. In order for your position to be valid based on your above statement, this must mean that the fetus has no rights, or that they are at least superseded by the mother. The debate about when a group of cells/embryo/fetus becomes a person is nothing new, but I can at least infer that you do not recognize the personhood of the fetus. The distinction between what we recognize as a person and what we do not is crucial because to one we grant inalienable rights and to the other we simply do not. And this is where we get to the crux of your position. I would simply like to know your reason for not recognizing the personhood of a fetus. Surely it cannot be due to appearance. After all, there are plenty of deformed individuals that we still recognize as people who are deserving of rights. It must not also be due to cognitive abilities. No one would ever suggest euthanizing a mentally handicapped person simply because their developmental skills were impaired. Is it because the fetus would be unable to survive on its own and relies purely on the consent of the mother in order to continue living? I suppose a similar situation exists with those individuals in comas who would be unable to survive without life support. It may be humane to turn the machines off to let them die, but this is only done after it has been determined that they have no chance of ever recovering. A fetus, on the other hand, will develop into a fully functioning human if their life support is not turned off. I simply want to know your reason for not ascribing rights to a fetus as it seems to be the justification for your position on abortion. If it is not one of the aforementioned ones, surely there must be a rational argument you can give me for when we are to first recognize an individual's rights and, crucially, what distinctive change has taken place in order for us to do so.
Thank you so much for the work that you and everyone else at AE do. It has truly helped me apply a higher standard of critical thinking within my own life and allowed me to seriously reconsider my views on much of what I simply held on faith for so very long.
what was frustrating, for me, was the semantic trickery that Comfort kept using. He must have known he was being dishonest as he was using it as a trick out of corners so many times. When he (had to accept) the good evidence that you gave him, he said a quiet "OK", but then went on ignoring the implications of that evidence. As Matt picked up, he continually kept moving the goalposts. He is merely a con artist, with a better than average command of the English language, but he did not have the honesty to accept that he was trounced at every turn, but merely reverted to regurgitating the creationist soundbites...ReplyDelete
I don't think he is a gentleman at all, and I do think you were too polite to him several times. He is blatantly dishonest, & either willfully ignorant, or (more likely) cherry picking either scientific evidence, or even biblical narratives (his wriggle on slavery was awful).
But thanks for a great show. I enjoy all the different hosts, and co-hosts on you show, living in South Africa, I hope one day to be able to come over to meet you all at the various different events you organise.
You guys did a great job, far better I think than anyone else he has publicly spoken to.ReplyDelete
I think you guys would have been better off though not wasting time debating evolution with him. Thats his bread and butter, your not going to convince him or anyone else that listens to him. BUT you guys are the best in the world at talking about and exposing religion. How does he know that the god he says he feels/knows isn't Satan or Zeus or Thor or whoever?
This guy loves to debate evolution, IMHO the debate went best when you you were on other subjects. (Except abortion! ouch lol)
The best part for me was:ReplyDelete
Matt: Are you infallible?
Ray: God is.
Matt: Okay. But are you?
Ray: Of course not.
Matt: Could you be wrong about God?
Ray: I could be wrong about God but God is not wrong.
Matt: Okay. If you could be wrong about God and you are necessarily contingent on your own personal experience, how do you know you're right?
Ray: Because for 22 years I was wrong! I had to admit my wrong(s) and say God is right, he is justified, I can trust him and I came to know him!
That bit really tells you what kind of apologist Ray Comfort is. Essentially, he admits that he could be wrong about this mysterious experience with 'the Lord' on one day in the 70's at 1:30 in the morning (my guess is a mild stroke, btw), but right after that he claims, that his god cannot be wrong. Which has nothing at all to do with the question. You see perfectly here, how his defence mechanisms work.
And to top it all, he knows, he is right because he thinks, he was wrong before this experience. And the the defence mechanism again: God is right, he is justified, I can trust him, blabla.
That was so sweet! Thank you Matt!
I would love to see a show devoted to this 'infallibility of god' concept. You could describe all the failings and trial and errors of Jahwe. And, of course, the moral implications of an infallible god in face of the horrific things happening on the planet.
No offense to Russel, but i really wished that AronRa was your co-host.ReplyDelete
Neuro-scientific study of conversion phenomena suggest that clinical or sub-clinical temporal lobe seizure is the usual culprit. Self- or other-induced transcendental states also apply. Such states involve the over activity of the left temporal lobes and sub-cortical systems that are involved in irrational love and the under-activity of right parietal regions involved in differentiating self from the external world and internal states with external reality.
Ray wants an example of one species giving birth to a creature of a different species. I got one!!! (I think...)ReplyDelete
Mules!- Arn't they offspring of donkies and horses? So A horse species (Assuming it's the female)in this case gives birth to a non-horse.
HA. That just occurred to me. I don't know any thing about farm animals and breeding them.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
I love how you guys had bananas on the show. I still find it amusing that in the famous video clip he used a banana, which is ironically an example of evolution by artificial selection rather than a fruit that god supposedly gave us to eat.ReplyDelete
When a " Ray Comfort type" Can't see how ,in evolution, sea creatures can become land creatures. I don't see why using the life cycle of a frog, something they can relate to, wouldn't be proof that the mechanism for this is possible Any thoughts?ReplyDelete
it might help your audience. You have no hope of persuading a Ray Comfort type because they do not wish to be confused with facts. They have an emotional belief system that they cannot afford to give up so they will filter out, ignore, forget and twist anything that threatens this emotionally held view.ReplyDelete
The only way "in" is to deal with the emotional block. Very few atheist debaters try to do this.
Good episode! I wish it was longer (not rushed) and more organized/structured though. It seemed like both sides were making equal number of points while... well... R. Comfort didn't make any.ReplyDelete
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.


text:
October 1st, 2015 by Brandon Peters
The latest entertainment news and reviews in 4K UHD, Blu-ray, movies and more…
Brandon is the host, producer, writer and editor of The Brandon Peters Show (thebrandonpetersshow.com) on the Creative Zombie Studios Network. At Why So Blu he is a Writer/Reviewer. Brandon is a lifelong obsessive film nerd. As eager to educate in the world of film as I am to learn. An avid lover of horror, schlock and trash. You can also find older essays on his blog Naptown Nerd (naptownnerd.blogspot.com).
Comments are currently closed.
This entry is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0 . Both comments and pings are currently closed.
HOME | ABOUT | ADVERTISE | CONTACT | FAQs | FRIENDS | STAFF
This web site is not affiliated with the Blu-ray Disc Association. All trademarks are the property of the respective trademark owners.
Copyright 2008-2015 WhySoBlu.com. All Rights Reserved.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)


text:
Back in April, Nintendo said it was counting on increased 3DS sales and profitability to help turn around the first full-year loss in the company's history. Today, Nintendo admitted that demand for its latest portable and the aging Wii continue to lag behind expectations, dragging down profits.
It's not like the 3DS is a Virtual Boy-level failure—the system did sell over 5 million units worldwide in the six months through September, including 2.1 million sales for the well-designed 3DS XL. First-party titles like New Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario 3D Land, and Mario Kart 7 continue to sell in the millions as well.
But Nintendo still lowered 3DS sales expectations for the full fiscal year, which ends in March, from 18.5 million to 17.5 million, reflecting increasingly tough competition from mobile and tablet games. The outdated Wii also continued its long sales decline, selling only 1.3 million units in the last six months due to what Nintendo admitted were "few new title releases." The company cut full-year sales expectations for the Wii drastically, from an expected 10.5 million in April to 5 million today.
Nintendo still says it expects to return to profitability this fiscal year, but the weak performance over the last six months led to an abrupt 70 percent cut in that profit forecast, to ¥6 billion ($75.2 million). Even that revised number seems a bit optimistic, given that the company lost ¥27.99 billion ($350.8 million) over the last six months. Nintendo continues to blame tough international exchange rates in part for the poor performance, but that likely wouldn't matter much if the Wii and DS line were selling like they did in their heyday.
All eyes are now on the impending launch of the Wii U to turn Nintendo's fortunes around. The gaming giant now says it expects to sell 5.5 million Wii U systems through March, along with 24 million pieces of Wii U software—just over four games per customer. Nintendo had better hope it meets those expectations, because another annual loss could easily lead investors to lose faith in the once-dominant company.